Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 03 Mar 2016, 6:34 am

It's looking like the Berndog may have his day in the sun after all as the Justice Department takes one step closer to a criminal family.

Fate, although I already owe you one lunch due to this election, how about doubling down?

I say this summer the country is embroiled in even more reality tv as the criminal is brought to justice and blocked from running for president.

What say you?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Mar 2016, 4:16 pm

dag hammarsjkold wrote:It's looking like the Berndog may have his day in the sun after all as the Justice Department takes one step closer to a criminal family.

Fate, although I already owe you one lunch due to this election, how about doubling down?

I say this summer the country is embroiled in even more reality tv as the criminal is brought to justice and blocked from running for president.

What say you?


I believe she will be, so no bet.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us ... ort.com%2F

Not only are they after her re the server, but there's the Abedin thing and there's also the Clinton Foundation conflict of interest stuff.

She is, without question, the biggest crook to ever run for President. The only question is if there are enough honest people left at DOJ to get her.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 05 Mar 2016, 2:49 am

She is, without question, the biggest crook to ever run for President.


Aaron Burr ? Not only did he shoot a man dead, he was also the founder of the Tammany machine and faced trial on treason charges. Slightly more serious than sending emails from a private server I'd suggest.

You might also want to consider Nixon.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Mar 2016, 3:23 am

Sassenach wrote:
She is, without question, the biggest crook to ever run for President.


Aaron Burr ? Not only did he shoot a man dead, he was also the founder of the Tammany machine and faced trial on treason charges. Slightly more serious than sending emails from a private server I'd suggest.

You might also want to consider Nixon.


Nixon was not a crook; he said so. Okay, so he was, but he wasn't in 1968.

Aaron Burr . . . was he on a ballot for President?

Look at it this way: Hillary started "public service" as a middle income nobody. She is now worth tens of millions of dollars. She is a poster child of influence-peddling and corruption.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 05 Mar 2016, 3:49 am

Burr stood for President a couple of times I believe.

I'm willing to bet that if you were to go back and examine all the various people who have stood for the Presidency you'd find all kinds of shady characters. Hillary almost certainly doesn't come anywhere near the top of the pile.

Sadly, it seems to be the case that senior politicians always find a way to feather their own nests after leaving office these days. Look how much money Tony Blair has been making, millions and millions of pounds, most of it from morally questionable sources. It doesn't necessarily make him a criminal though, just ethically suspect. The same probably applies to the Clintons' fortune.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Mar 2016, 8:14 am

Labeling her as being a criminal is over the top . Put another way, what are her crimes? Be specific. Ethically suspect? Probably.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 05 Mar 2016, 8:28 am

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/28/1416309/-Hillary-Clinton-s-Felony-The-federal-laws-violated-by-the-private-server

Hillary Rodham Clinton has committed a felony. That is apparent from the facts and in the plain-language of the federal statute that prohibits "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information", 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). This offense carries a potential penalty of ten years imprisonment.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Mar 2016, 8:57 am

Gee, why wait for the FBI to finish their investigation, if it is that clear? It's not clear and any analogy to prior cases always come up with major differences. Like the former CIA director. He knowingly took classified material home with him. They did not even prosecute him for that and that was far more egregious than anything alleged with regard to Hillary . I note that the story is over 6 months old. I note that because since then we have had legal experts chime in that it is an unlikely case for prosecution. In any case , it certainly isn't so clear that we should be calling her a criminal. By the way, even if she were convicted of a crime for mishandling of classified information I still think calling her a criminal would not be appropriate. Something like 40 percent of the US population has a criminal record. Clearly, only a small percentage of the US population has a propensity to commit crimes , though . A conviction for mishandling of classified information in my opinion would not make a person a "criminal". Selling classified information would.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Mar 2016, 12:11 pm

freeman3 wrote:Labeling her as being a criminal is over the top . Put another way, what are her crimes? Be specific. Ethically suspect? Probably.


I used "crook" intentionally. To me, that is not quite the same as "criminal" in that she need not be convicted. Her ethics are so low I've known convicted criminals who would consider her shady.

What makes it difficult (but not impossible) to not vote for Trump should he be the nominee is I know what low character she possesses.

Let me put it another way: has anyone ever benefitted as much financially as the Clintons from "public service?" If so, it is hard to imagine who it might have been.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 05 Mar 2016, 12:22 pm

Sassenach wrote:Burr stood for President a couple of times I believe.
He did, although that was back when the runner up was made VP, and at least the second time the deal was that Jefferson would get the top job.

But there are some other lovely characters who have stood:

Henry Wallace. Strom Thurmond. Breckenridge. Gresley.

I'm willing to bet that if you were to go back and examine all the various people who have stood for the Presidency you'd find all kinds of shady characters. Hillary almost certainly doesn't come anywhere near the top of the pile.

Sadly, it seems to be the case that senior politicians always find a way to feather their own nests after leaving office these days. Look how much money Tony Blair has been making, millions and millions of pounds, most of it from morally questionable sources. It doesn't necessarily make him a criminal though, just ethically suspect. The same probably applies to the Clintons' fortune.
When a politician you like makes loads of money, questioning it is "envy". When one you oppose does, questioning it is a matter of ethics...

Of course very few millionaires made their money by being nice guys.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 05 Mar 2016, 12:26 pm

Freeman, Was Nixon a criminal? I think so. How about you?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 05 Mar 2016, 12:31 pm

Let me put it another way: has anyone ever benefitted as much financially as the Clintons from "public service?" If so, it is hard to imagine who it might have been.


http://www.davemanuel.com/net-worth/dick-cheney/

This is just one example of many. Sadly, the Clintons are far from unusual in personally profiting from their public service. It's closer to being the norm than the exception.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Mar 2016, 1:16 pm

Oh, what Cheney did was far, far worse than what was described in that link, Sass. When he was defense secretary under Bush I he privatized a lot of logistical operations for the military. So which company benefited the most from said privatization? Halliburton. After he left office Halliburton hired him and paid him a large sum of money to be CEO. Of course, when he became vice- president he advocated for the invasion of Iraq. And which company was one of the primary beneficiaries of the no-bid contracts they awarded in Iraq? Halliburton. Did he advocate for the war in Iraq based on he thought were the best interests of the country or for the interest of a company that made him rich? The story of his corrupt ties is far more troubling than the vague sort of corruption allegations with regard to Hillary with relatively minor stakes at play and no linkage as to what actually done by Hillary.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Mar 2016, 1:23 pm

Are you saying Brad that having an illegal 1 million slush fund for dirty tricks, authorizing felony burglaries, having the IRS audit people, illegally wiretapping people, and authorizing an illegal extension of the Vietnam War to Cambodia are on the same level as not making sure all incoming emails do not have classified information, said classified email retroactively deemed to be so?I would think not.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 05 Mar 2016, 2:17 pm

We also ought not to overlook this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professio ... ge_W._Bush

Not sure whether GW could be said to have profited from 'public service' per se here since most of it happened before he become Governor, but he certainly made an awful lot of money through exploiting his political contacts.

Again, I'll emphasise that this is not unusual behaviour for the politically connected.